WATER PARK FUN CAN MASK HAZARDS

Water parks can make for refreshing family fun on a hot summer day. After all, who doesn’t love the thrill of speeding down a twisting slide and making that huge splash into the cool water at the end? That’s why approximately 85 million people visited the nation’s 1,300 water parks in 2015. But in addition to being a huge source of summer fun, water parks can be a place of danger. While most visitors head to the parking lot at the end of the day wet and tired but intact, the lack of national safety oversight, the slipshod design and construction (and spotty inspection) of some park attractions, and the Inconsistent enforcement of local and state safety codes inevitably mean that some visitors could get hurt or even killed. In fact, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that more than 4,200 people are taken to emergency rooms each year for scrapes, concussions, broken limbs, spinal injuries and other serious injuries sustained at water parks each year. Some visitors have even died from water park mishaps. So if you or a loved one is injured at a water park, it’s important to speak with an attorney to see what kinds of rights you might have. Depending on the situation, you might be able to hold the park’s operators (or the designer or builder of the ride) accountable. Take the case of Caleb Schwab, a 10-year-old boy who was killed at Schlitterbahn Waterpark in Kansas City last summer while riding the “Verruckt” (the German word for “insane”). On this particular attraction, which the park advertised as the world’s tallest water slide, riders sit in multi-person rafts and experience what the park boasts is a “jaw dropping” 17-story drop — taller than the Statue of Liberty or Niagara Falls — at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour before being blasted back up a second hill and dropped another 50 feet into a pool. While specific details are sketchy, some observers say Caleb was ejected from his seat, possibly due to faulty harness straps, and an anonymous witness said he was decapitated in the accident. The ride had been re-engineered midway through construction when sandbags flew off during early tests, and after it opened riders had complained of shoulder straps breaking, forcing riders to grip handles with their legs to hold on. One of the park’s owners also apparently admitted that he and the designer based their design calculations on roller coasters, which don’t necessarily translate well to water slides. What’s more, state regulators hadn’t inspected the park since 2012, two years before the ride opened. Caleb’s family ultimately sued the park’s Texas-based owner and the manufacturer of the raft. The case settled out of court for a confidential amount, but the family still may seek to hold other parties responsible, including the designer of the ride. Another recent case involves a man who visited Sahara Sam’s Oasis Indoor and Outdoor Water Park in New Jersey in 2010. The visitor, Roy Steinberg, fell off a simulated surfboard on the park’s “FlowRider” attraction. When he fell, he struck his head on the bottom of the pool, causing a spinal cord injury that left him a partial paraplegic. When he sought to hold the park responsible, a trial court threw out his case because before entering the park Steinberg had apparently signed a liability waiver absolving the park of responsibility for any harm he might suffer as a result of its negligence. But the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the decision. According to the court, the park had committed “gross negligence” by failing to post updated safety instruction signs provided by the manufacturer that if followed might have prevented the injury. Further, patrons who sign a liability waiver are only waiving claims for “ordinary” negligence, not “gross” negligence, the court said. This provides an important lesson that even if you sign a waiver when you visit a water park, it’s still worth talking to a lawyer. Water parks without exotic, over-the-top attractions like Verruckt and FlowRider pose risks too. For example, while the water in most pools at water parks is shallower than three feet, there is still a risk of harm, particularly for weak swimmers or children. The risk is heightened in wave pools, where someone can be knocked over and suffer a concussion or even drown. None of this is to suggest that you shouldn’t be taking your family to a water park on a hot summer day. But you should know the risks and be ready to assess for yourself whether a particular feature seems safe for you or your kids. You might also want to look into who inspects the park and how frequently. If you do suffer an injury at a water park and you suspect it’s related to park operation and design, absolutely talk to an attorney to find out how you can best proceed. If you wish to speak to an Attorney and want free legal advise regarding your personal injury, please call Charfoos & Christensen PC (313) 875-8080

leading lawyer

David W. Christensen published in 2017 Leading Lawyers Magazine, Michigan Edition. Top 10 in Michigan in ALL areas of law, Top 10 Consumer, Top 10 Plaintiff Personal Injury. David W. Christensen has been practicing in Michigan for 44 years. Congratulations to All the lawyers published.

Wife & Mother Meets Girlfriend for a Drink and is Shot! Bar Staff Could Have Prevented Her Death if They Called The Police Instead of Breaking the Shooters Jaw Before He Had The Gun!

Estate of Plaintiff’s Decedent vs. Defendant Bar Owner, Defendant Bar Operator/LLC, Defendant Security Companies, Defendant Bouncers and Defendant Bar Customer State of Michigan, County Circuit Court Regarding settlement $250,000.00 with Bar Owner and Settlement $3,500.00 with Defendant Security Companies Case Evaluation: $129,500.00 Settled following facilitation Facts: This is a case of a bar out of control with foreseeable tragic results. The defendant bar operator/LLC, operating under a lease and agreement with defendant bar owner who held the liquor license, should not have been operating on the night that Plaintiff’s decedent was fatally shot. It remained in operation even after the city police, who believed the bar was a menace to the safety of citizens and patrons, notified defendant bar owner that operations should be terminated immediately. The defendant owner insisted on abiding by a 10-day notice provision in the operating agreement with the defendant bar operators/LLC, which was the only reason the bar was allowed to remain in operation. Four days after police said the operating agreement should end immediately, altercations and threats involving defendant bouncers/security and customers led to gunfire which killed Plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiff’s decedent died from a bullet wound to her head. She was married and the mother of a minor son, enjoying an evening with female friends at the defendant bar. It was Plaintiff’s decedent’s first visit to the bar and she was unaware of the bar’s notorious history among city police detectives. Police had documented numerous violent incidents including shootings, assaults and drug dealing at the venue. The defendant bar was owned and operated by the defendant owner and bouncers were provided by other defendant security companies. Defendant owner owned the building and liquor license which it licensed to defendant bar operator/LLC under an unusual arrangement that was not approved by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (“MLCC”). Earlier, the defendant bar owner was informed by the city police department of ongoing problems at defendant bar, and several meetings were held in an attempt to remedy the problems. During the next three months, the problems involving assaults, thefts, overcrowding, and use of controlled substances, among other problems at the bar increased in frequency and severity. The Michigan Liquor Control Commission suspended defendant owner’s liquor license for failure to provide proof of financial responsibility and police reported the bar for various violations. Suspension notice was received by the city police. Days before the tragic death, the city police held a meeting with defendant bar owner. Following that meeting, defendant owner sent an e-mail to city police advising them that defendant bar operator/LLC would be notified that defendant bar owner was revoking defendant bar operator/LLC’s use of defendant bar owner’s liquor license. However, two days later defendant bar owner notified city police that he had been informed by an attorney that an agreement between defendant bar owner and defendant bar operator/LLC provided for a 10-day notice period before termination, and therefore, defendant bar would be operating with the liquor license for 10 more days. City police responded to defendant bar owner informing him that the 10-day notice period applied to the lease and the liquor license could be revoked immediately. According to the agreement, defendant bar owner as licensee was responsible for the conduct of the operation of the licensed business and the actions of the manager in the conduct of the licensed business, in the same manner as he would be with respect to his own employees. This agreement was never approved by the MLCC and should have been deemed nonbinding. Despite this knowledge, defendant bar owner did not revoke the rights of defendant bar operator/LLC to operate under its liquor license but instead allowed it to continue to use the license. Two days later, Plaintiff’s decedent was seated with her friends inside the defendant bar. On the other side of the bar, its bouncers staffed by defendant security companies, some of whom were armed, had an altercation with three male customers. One of the male customers, also a defendant, threatened to get a gun and “shoot the m*** f*** club up” after being punched by a defendant bouncer. None of the defendants called police at this time. Defendant bouncers removed the customers to the bar’s parking lot where defendant bouncers beat the defendant customer a second time, causing him to spit up blood, and another removed customer suffered a broken jaw at the hands of defendant bouncers. The defendant customer returned to his car, bloodied and humiliated. Still, none of the defendants called police at this time. Defendant bouncers retreated inside the bar’s locked glass doors. The defendant customer sat in the front seat of his car. He wiped the blood from his face, changed his bloodied shirt and got his gun. His friend, seated in the passenger seat, saw the gun and tried to counsel defendant customer against using the gun. About five minutes later, defendant customer and his friend returned to the bar’s entrance, calling for the bouncers to come out. The defendant bouncers brandished their guns from inside the glass doors. But the police were still not called. About 25 seconds later, defendant customer fired several shots at the building. One bullet went through a glass window, striking Plaintiff’s decedent. The first call to city police was logged 24 minutes after the altercations between bouncers and defendant customer. Police and emergency medical technicians attempted to treat Plaintiff’s decedent at the scene. She was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. Plaintiff’s decedent died as a result of breaches of duty by all the defendant participants, who had a duty to maintain a safe premises. Plaintiff’s decedent was 33 years of age, a wife, a mother and was gainfully employed. Settlement was achieved with the defendant bar owner, with minimal contribution from the defendant security companies. Defendant bar operator/LLC claimed they were operating under the operating agreement. Defendant bar owner and security companies claimed if city police had been called the death would not have been prevented.

Apprentice Tradesman Burned to Death at Industrial Company

Personal Representative of the Estate of a 21-year old Deceased vs Defendant Industrial Corporation and Defendant Trades. Settlement: $4.25 Million Dollars, February 2012. Plaintiff’s Decedent was an apprentice tradesman working at Defendant Industrial Company, as were Defendant Trades. All parties were present at Defendant Industrial Company for the purposes of unblocking a gas washer. Defendant Industrial Company developed a plan and sequence utilizing all of Defendant Trades and Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Trade to unblock the gas washer. At the date and times these events were to take place, Defendant Industrial Corporation eliminated the safest access to address the blockage. Defendant Industrial Corporation altered the plan so that Defendant Trades would attempt to unblock the gas washer by attempting to vacuum or water jet out the clean out lines and/or replace a 40-inch clean out pipe at the bottom of the clogged gas washer. If these attempts were unsuccessful, Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Trade would remove a flange attached to the bottom of the gas washer. Defendant Trades were unsuccessful in their attempts at unclogging the gas washer. All Defendants were aware that any material in the gas washer was known to be super heated. After Defendant Trades were unable to unclog the gas washer, Defendant Industrial Corporation advised Plaintiff’s Decedent to proceed in removing the flange. The flange was located at the bottom of the gas washer in an area that subsequently was defined as a confined closed space, meaning there was limited ingress and egress. Plaintiff’s Decedent was standing in front of the flange removing every other bolt as instructed by Defendant Industrial Corporation in preparation for its removal. After completing the task of removing every other bolt, Plaintiff’s Decedent was instructed to begin removing the rest of the bolts. With one bolt left, the flange opened, engulfing Plaintiff’s Decedent in hot steam water and mud. Plaintiff’s Decedent was burned over 95 per cent of his body. Plaintiff’s Decedent expired the following morning.